Mormons and Patristics

[_maklelan]

This is a preliminary copy of a paper I recently wrote that is being reviewed right now for presentation at the BYU Student Symposium. It's an early version, so the published one (if it gets published) will be quite different. I don't know if it will all fit on one post, but I welcome any ideas, concerns and criticisms.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seem to have a propensity for digging through the history of the early Christian church. Among the motivations that might explain this habit, 1 a common one seems to be the desire to discover hidden pockets of the “plain and precious truths” otherwise garnished from the scriptures by the corrupting doctors of theology. We will examine this motivation. Is it really such a good idea to scour the early Church for signs of truth? Frank F. Judd and Stephen E. Robinson share the important warning that such a journey will never bear fruit. According to Dr. Robinson, “it just isn’t there!”2

This paper will show that caution needs to be taken when attempting to identify lost Gospel truths in the fringes of early Christianity. In investigating the impetuses for the doctrines of early Christianity it will be of special interest to juxtapose our own contemporary and unique doctrines, and explain how they do or do not fit into our investigation. Many outside the church take issue with the LDS stance concerning the influence of the philosophies of men on the doctrines of the church; and some of them, astonished at our presumptuous, see that same influence in our own teachings. One such scholar discusses the hypocrisy of criticizing Hellenized Christianity while at the same time searching for parallels in the teachings of those same Hellenized Christians.3 It will be beneficial, therefore, to include within this context an analysis of Joseph Smith’s teachings. We will undertake to so do by investigating the doctrines of 1) the pre-mortal existence, 2) the eternal nature of matter, and 3) deification. We will examine these doctrines within the teachings of the early Church Fathers, the Greek philosophers, and finally, Joseph Smith.

Pre-mortal existence

The doctrine of the preexistence of souls is found in a smattering of early Christian writings. Most of these examples are from Gnostic writings (such as the Gospel of Judas), which are an offspring of Platonic metaphysics and allegorically interpreted Christian scriptures. The doctrine can be identified in other deuterocanonical works, but very vaguely represented. A third source of this doctrine is the work of Origen and Clement.
Origen and Clement (both of Alexandria) were the only Patristics that latched firmly onto the principle of preexistence, but it seems to be in reaction to the Gnostic movements in the area. Clement and Origen chose Greek philosophy as their weapon against the Gnostics. Because Alexandrian Christianity was thought to have been reared within the context of Hellenized Judaism, 4 this approach was not unreasonable to either of them.

The most comprehensive Patristic manifestation of the doctrine of pre-mortal existence comes to us from Origen, possibly by way of Clement.5 The doctrine was taught in Egypt and later throughout the church, but it was soon considered heretical, and Origen’s doctrines were officially anathemized at the Second Council of Constantinople in AD 553.6
In order to make clear the distinction between the doctrine of preexistence of Plato and Origen, we will examine them individually. In his Phaedo, Plato, through Socrates, argues for the preexistence of the soul via four arguments, only the fourth of which being accepted by Socrates’ peers as valid. Undercutting all three of Plato’s arguments is the idea that the soul exists as a “form” (the abstract essences of the qualities with which we define and perceive our world). He builds his first three arguments upon this concept, and as his arguments fall, this principle remains standing to provide Plato with a final and successful argument. All material things pass away, but forms are eternal and unchanging. The soul is like a form because, by it, life is generated. Because forms bring life to all materiality, the soul must be classified among the forms.7 Plato’s preexistence is therefore derived from his doctrine of forms.

Origen’s doctrine in describing our journey from pre-mortal “mind” (the purest state of our souls) to incarnation is, without a doubt, a derivative of Platonism. In commenting on the pre-mortal existence of souls, Origen slightly amends the Platonic version to accommodate the Judeo-Christian concept of the Fall. Adam and Eve are an allegorical representation8 of a spiritual event that separates humans from the divine. This event took place when God endowed our minds (i.e., “souls”) with free will that righteousness might be their own, and rebellion ensued. From Origen’s On First Principles: “slothfulness, and a dislike of labour in preserving what is good, and an aversion to and a neglect of better things, furnished the beginning of a departure from the goodness.”9 The mind is degraded to a soul, which subsequently degrades to taking on a fleshly body. These are all just episodes in a drawn-out quest to return to communion with God. Despite the fact that Origen was one of the sole transgressors later named in the crime of Hellenizing Christianity, many early Christians were held under the thumb of Platonic interpretations of the scriptures. The entire idea of allegorical interpretation stems from classical philosophy; Origen’s spirituality was only a slight tangent from the pervading thoughts of his day. His transgression lay mainly in his failing to delineate between a Christian view of preexistence and the Greek philosophical view of the same that was intimately tied to reincarnation, and for this he was condemned.10

Unfortunately, space does not allow an investigation into the possibility that esoteric Jewish mysticism influenced the early Patristics. Suffice it to say, Origen did not get his doctrine of preexistence from any divine teachings or revelations now unknown to us. The issue appears to have been an open question that was ultimately answered with an appeal to classical philosophy. Following the rejection of Origen’s teachings the authorities distanced themselves as far as possible from the heresy of pre-mortal existence. By Nicene times humankind was demoted to an utterly created being.

Eternal Nature of Matter

Connected to the Platonic concept of preexistence is that of the eternal nature of matter. For Plato, God could not create matter, because he and matter (the anake) are the two co-eternal elements in the universe. According to the Timaeus, matter has always existed in chaos. Without a form, the four components of matter (earth, air, fire and water) are in perpetually chaotic motion. God set them in order by giving them shape. They are then set in a rotation. God sets the world soul in rotation as well, and the universe is underway.11

The Judeo-Christian concept of the eternal nature of matter cannot be segregated from an argument for or against creatio ex nihilo, or creation out of nothing. Prior to the Hellenization of Jewry there is no direct discussion of this concept, but we begin to be introduced to the idea in various extra-biblical Jewish writings around the time of Christ. Jewish leaders were relatively split on the matter, but, as Gerhard May points out, “a firm, unambiguously formulated doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is not worked out in ancient Jewry.”12

The New Testament offers few clues in either direction concerning the nature of creation outside of some squirrelly exegesis, but the Patristics offer some interesting ideas. Some of the earliest Fathers, the Apologists, make a case against creatio ex nihilo. Justin Martyr claims he bases his arguments on Genesis, and says Plato must have done the same.13 Disparagingly, Martyr’s arguments can be shown to be so dependent upon Platonism as to render his opinion moot. Most of the Patristics who espoused this doctrine did so in Platonic contexts.14

One of the few Fathers who was definitely not influenced by Greek philosophy was the first century Clement of Rome, who, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, shares in the Apologist conclusion of creatio ex materia.15 First Clement predates the onset of the Greek influence in Christian theology. His ideas, while not ultimately canon, are definitely an accurate representation of the doctrines widely accepted by the membership of the church immediately following the Apostolic Age.16 The doctrine of eternal matter in First Clement operated within Christianity independent of classical philosophy.
As the second century waned, the Patristics began a period of offensive actions against the doctrines considered to be too Platonic, and creatio ex materia fell under the axe. Many Patristics subscribed to this doctrine, but their Middle Platonic tendencies create significant problems for their theology. The fact remains, however, that the doctrine was not originally born of Platonic influences, as is often asserted.

Deification

The early Christian doctrine of theosis was often more of an aside than a focal point. The main concern of the Patristics was how the chasm that existed between God and humanity was overcome, rather than the nature of our existence after that chasm is bridged. In their expositions, however, casual mention is made of the idea of the deification of humans. This “deification” is termed such despite being more of a pseudo-deification by association. Just like you may have mouthed off to kids you were normally scared of if your big brother was around—while wielding no powers of intimidation yourself—our godhood is only passive participation in the glory of His godhood. We are told by Justin Martyr through to Athanasius that God became human that humans may become like God, but this soteriology takes special care to avoid breaching the highest priority of early Christianity: strict monotheism. Above all they avoid intimating that anyone could ever become truly divine. Their entire theosis is manipulated from this first criterion. We will here examine only the outcome of that process.

Their deification finds its dawn in the divine Logos, who descended to humanity so that the connection between the divine and the material could be forged. In and only in this connection we inherit the classification of deity, albeit honorary. Jordan Vajda, in his thesis, makes it clear that humankind enjoys deification wholly inferior to the nature of Christ and the Father’s deity.17 He quotes Vladimr Lossky:

Like the divine Person of the Word who assumed human nature, human persons in whom union with God is being accomplished ought to unite in themselves the created and the uncreated, to become, so to speak, persons of two natures, with this difference, that Christ is a divine Person while deified men are and always will remain created persons.18

Vajda continues with this furtherance: “Clearly, then, human persons become ‘partakers of the divine nature’ in a way that is existentially different from the way Christ is divine…What Christ is by nature, divine, we are called to be by grace or participation.”19 That a created being could be elevated to an equal station with an eternal being was ludicrous. Our divinization was as close as we could get, but it was not real divinization. Although Irenaeus comments that Christ became like us so that we might “be even what He Himself is,”20 the statement is qualified by the earlier mention that our partaking of the divine essence is manifested only in our “continuance in immortality.”21 “The human being does not become God by nature, but merely a ‘created god,’ a god by grace or by status,” according to Timothy Ware.22

As has been asserted by the Fathers, our created state is to blame for our eternally impotent nature. While Christ is dual in nature – having an eternal spirit and a mortal body - our spirit and body are only two sides to a single, composite nature, and that finite.23 In this definition we are again separated from God by the eternities. Some are optimistic that a link is found in the various Patristic mentions that we are working to return to a former state, but these statements refer not to our individual natures, but to that of the human family (i.e., Adam’s communion with God).

The early Christian doctrine of deification marks a departure from most of the philosophical speculation of the day, but is ultimately dependant upon several philosophical definitions. These definitions illustrate the separation from true doctrine and explain why early Christian deification is so far removed from the eternal progression taught by the prophet Joseph Smith.

The main departure from truth is the vehement maintenance of strict monotheism. Without this restriction, the thought of humanity elevated to godhood does no one any harm. There is no need to twist or flat out ignore the scriptures that make it clear our purpose here is to become exactly like God and Jesus Christ; there is no need to demean the human soul and make it composite and created.

Considerations need to be made to find the source for the monotheistic dogma, and the scriptures don’t seem to be the best prospect. Throughout the Bible we are told of the existence of various beings clad in the title of “god.” Some try to dilute the nomenclature by asserting that the Hebrew can also mean “judges” or “heavenly beings”, but Christ provides, in John 10:34, a Greek translation of the Hebrew, and of the Greek there can be no mistake. That the scriptures preach a plurality of gods, at least nominally, is undeniable.

These “gods” may find distinction in the hierarchy of their power, but pantheism is also a violation of monotheism. That classification doesn’t help, so where does this restriction come from?

In much of Greek thought, “God” is the title given to the superlative ideal. Plato’s god is understood to be “the Good”.24 Anaximander calls it “the Boundless”,25 and out of it everything flows. Pythagoras says it is “the One,” 26 and it is the cause of everything else. To Aristotle it is the “Prime Mover.”27 Of any superlative there can only, by definition, be one. Xenophanes makes this clear: “If God is the mightiest, He must be One; for were He two or more, He would not have dominion over the others, but, not having dominion over the others, He could not be God. Thus were there several, they would be relatively more powerful or weaker, and thus they would not be gods, for God’s nature is to have nothing mightier than He.”28 The fact that many Patristics quote Xenophanes verbatim in their descriptions of God29 (i.e., incorporeal, without parts, all seeing, etc.) is a clear indication that his words held influence over the development of doctrine. That Christianity adopted a more Greek vernacular in an effort to better relate to the civilized world is clear and blameless, but the assimilation seems to have gone much further than mere words. The strict monotheism of the classical Greeks became the criterion within which Christian theology would be forced to function, and the theosis described above is one of the products of this restriction.

While the polished up deification of Athanasius is clearly a product of Hellenism, we cannot ignore the fact that a segment of Judaism handed off to Christianity a version of theosis very similar to the LDS perception. The following is reported by Dr. Barry Bickmore in his FARMS review of Inside Mormonism:

The Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future call all of the pious by their names, and give them a cup of elixir of life in their hands so that they should live and endure forever. . . . And the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future reveal to all the pious in the World to Come the Ineffable Name with which new heavens and a new earth can be created, so that all of them should be able to create new worlds. . . . The Holy One, blessed be He, will give every pious three hundred and forty worlds in inheritance in the World to Come.30

While Dr. Bickmore feels that “Latter-day Saints can make a strong argument for the proposition that the original Judeo-Christian concept of deification was very similar to ours”, he does offer the warning that one need be careful when choosing proof texts.31 The early Church’s theosis may have stemmed from true doctrine, but its Greek adaptation was almost immediate. It may have come from doctrinal expositions not contained in the New Testament, and our understanding may be a full restoration of what was once commonly known, but from its earliest surviving extra-biblical Christian intimations it was among those doctrines fallen prey to the wresting of the scriptures.

Joseph Smith’s Soteriology

As the teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith became more public and more bold, his doctrines deviated severely from the accepted norms. He taught many ideas utterly foreign to the day’s religionists, but the test of time has shown his grasp of Ancient Near Eastern consciousness to be impossibly accurate. Yale’s Harold Bloom can’t explain it: “I can only attribute to his genius or daemon his uncanny recovery of elements in ancient Jewish theurgy that had ceased to be available to normative Judaism or to Christianity, and that had survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly.”32

The three doctrines we have thus far investigated were individually important to the theologians of the early Church, but in LDS soteriology they, combined, provide us with the greatest blessing of the Gospel and the very work and glory of our Father in Heaven. They are each critical to our eternal progression. We will examine their uniqueness and import one by one.

The beginning of our investigation focuses on the preexistent human spirit. This was, for Joseph Smith, an utterly fundamental truth, and inseparably linked to our salvation. When referencing the doctrine in his King Follett Discourse, he mentions that the principle is “calculated to exalt man.”33 To insist that humans are suddenly created being (as the early Fathers did and most theologians still do) is to demean them and distance them from God, according to the prophet. The Prophet’s teachings on the subject are opposite of those of the Patristics in almost every way. In order to contrast the magnificence of God against our nothingness, the Patristics highlighted and extended the gulf between us; Joseph Smith drew us closer to God without bringing Him down. This brings our relationship with God into the forefront of our theology. Rather than disintegrate the relationship, we fortify it. This relationship, according to the Prophet, allows us to advance in knowledge, 34 putting the only barriers that separate us from God within the capacity of the Atonement to overcome.
Joseph Smith’s doctrine of the pre-mortal existence is not Platonic. Plato saw the soul move from being to being, progressing or retrograding according to their capacity to transcend the corruption of the flesh. While some may find an ascetic correlation in our fasting and our Word of Wisdom, our discipline in the matter is designed to edify both body and spirit, rather than leave one behind in the interest of the other. Joseph Smith taught that a fullness of joy is found only in an inseparable connection of body and spirit.35

The next principle to be inspected is found alongside nearly every mention of spirit in Joseph Smith’s writings: the eternal nature of matter. While we don’t have a comprehensive treatise on early Christianity’s independent perception of this teaching, we do have several references from the philosophers, and to these we can compare the teachings of the Prophet. Some find the idea of eternal matter purely Platonic in nature, but, again, Joseph Smith taught a perspective completely opposite the Greek. That Joseph Smith taught creation came from chaotic matter is true, but he adds a qualification that decouples the two ideas: glory dwells in matter.36 Ultimately, the trump card in Joseph’s deck is the supernal truth that all spirit is matter.37 While others pondered the dualities of God and man, Joseph boldly announced that the spirit is simply a far more pure manifestation of our very own bodily constitution. He was influenced by neither the Patristics nor the philosophers.

With our spirits now thrust into the realms of eternity and our bodies elevated to receptacles of glory, we may proceed to the culmination of gospel truth: eternal progression. Joseph Smith’s ideas about deification represent the inevitable conclusion of the doctrines already presented. The Patristics, on the other hand, were inhibited by their sterilized and diluted doctrine. Elder Oaks has said that the prevalent doctrines of early Christianity “could not lead their adherents to the destiny God desired for them.”38 Whereas Irenaeus and Athanasius had to deprive their doctrine of deification to fit into the rigid requirements their speculation had produced, Joseph Smith was free to express the truths as he received them, without worrying about retrofitting them to his earlier conclusions, and he did so without concern for the impression it would make.

The scriptures painted a crystal clear picture for Joseph Smith. The end of all creation is to elevate man to the station of godhood, in every way shape and form. We are not arbitrarily created whenever a birth takes place, suddenly responsible for our actions without ever choosing to be. We are part of a great plan that has many names: the plan of happiness; the plan of salvation; the plan of redemption; the plan of mercy; the plan of our Father in Heaven.39 We are willing participants in a plan that so filled us with hope that we shouted with joy.40

Conclusion

While on the surface some may see specific early Christian doctrines as supportive of the ancient origins of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, others see it as a testimony of the human origin of the church. An objective look at the causative factors of these doctrines clears up the errors in both conclusions.

As has been shown, the doctrines of the Patristics share only nominal similarities with the doctrines of the Prophet Joseph Smith. While we should not hold up the Gnostic idea of the pre-mortal existence as an example of a proto-Mormon doctrine, we should recognize that some of these ideas did come from somewhere; early Christianity initially believed in creatio ex materia because the scriptures taught it. We cannot say for sure whether or not other ideas, like baptism for the dead, were the empty husks of pure teachings or not. It has been proposed that the Apostles kept hidden several principles from the body of the flock, but these ideas also come from apocryphal literature.41 The Lord has cautioned us to be wary in studying these scriptures.42 Most of our scholars have done the same. Salvation, in the end, is not about discovering the hidden mysteries of God in the obscure texts of the ancient world. We are not Gnostics.




NOTES




1. Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, “Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?” TJ 19.2 (1998): 179–205. The authors state that one reason is the desire to validate the doctrine of the Great Apostasy. See also Chris Welborn, “Mormons and Patristic Studies: How Mormons Use the Church Fathers to Defend Mormonism,” CRJ 28.3 (2005) n.p. [cited 20 November 2006].Online: http://www .equip.org/free/JAM515.htm. The author states that vindication is the one and only motivation for Patristic studies among Mormons: “Mormons have studied patristic writers increasingly since the middle of the twentieth century so as to use them to justify their church’s claim to be the true church.”
2. Stephen E. Robinson, “Lying for God: the Uses of the Apocrypha,” in Apocryphal Writings and the Latter-day Saints, ed. C. Wilfred Griggs, Religious Studies Monograph Series 13 (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1986), 135. Quoted in Frank F. Judd, Jr., “Judas in the New Testament, the Restoration, and the
Gospel of Judas,” BYU Studies 45.2 (2006): 43. Professor Judd, writing about the Gospel of Judas, comments that such texts caution us to “search for plain and precious truths in the standard works and the works of living prophets, rather than in these kinds of non-canonical books.”
3. Francis J. Beckwith, “Mormon Theism, the Traditional Christian Concept of God, and Greek Philosophy: A Critical Analysis,” JET 44.4 (2001): 693. The author states: “Thus, one could say that Joseph Smith, Jr. restored, not the true Christian concept of God, but long forgotten aspects of several schools of Greek philosophical thought.”
4. Robert P. Casey, “Clement of Alexandria and the Beginnings of Christian Platonism,” HTR 18.1 (Jan., 1925): 45. See also Henry Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), 33.
5. Alexander Alexakis, “Was There Life Beyond the Life Beyond? Byzantine Ideas on Reincarnation and Final Restoration,” DOP 55 (2001): 162–63.
6. Alexakis, “Byzantine Ideas on Reincarnation,” 163–64.
7. Plato, Phaedo, 1.363–365 (Fowler, LCL).
8. Origen, On First Principles 4.1.16 (ANF 4:365).
9. Origen, On First Principles 2.9.2 (ANF 4:290).
10. Joseph Wilson Trigg, Origen (New York: Routledge, 1998), 21.
11. Plato, Timaeus 59–65 (Bury, LCL).
12. Gerhard May, Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of “Creation Out of Nothing” in Early
Christian Thought (trans. A. S. Worrall; Edinburgh: Clark, 1994), 23.
13. Justin Martyr, The First Apology of Justin 59 (ANF 1:182).
14. Maren R. Niehoff, “Creatio ex Nihilo Theology in Genesis Rabbah in Light of
Christian Exegesis,” HTR 99 (2006):50.
15. Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 60:1.
16. Andrew Gregory, “I Clement: An Introduction,” The Expository Times 117.6 (2006):
223-24.
17. Jordan Vajda, Partakers of the Divine Nature: A Comparative Analysis of the Patristic and
Mormon Doctrines of Divinization, in Occasional Papers No. 3 (Provo,UT: FARMS, 2002), 15.
18. Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's
Seminary Press, 1974), 65.
19. Vajda, Partakers of the Divine Nature, 12.
20. Iranaeus, Against Heresies 5 (ANF 1:526).
21. Iranaeus, Against Heresies 4.38.3 (ANF 1:521).
22. Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church: New Edition (New York: Penguin, 1993), 232.
23. Vajda, Partakers of the Divine Nature, 10.
24. Plato, Republic 1.284–85 (Shorey, LCL).
25. David John Furley, The Greek Cosmologists (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1987), 19.
26. Arthur Fairbanks, ed. and trans., The First Philosophers of Greece (London: K. Paul,
Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1898), 145.
27. Aristotle, Metaphysics 2.161–163 (Tredennick, LCL).
28. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy (England: K.
Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., Ltd., 1896), 244.
29. The Westminster Confession of Faith in ed. John H. Leith, Creeds of the Churches: A
Reader in Christian Doctrine From the Bible to the Present (Louisville, KY, John Knox Press, 1982), 197.
30. Midrash Alpha Beta diR. Akiba, BhM 3:32, quoted in Raphael Patai, The Messiah
Texts (Detroit:Wayne State University Press, 1979), 251, in Barry R. Bickmore, review of Isaiah Bennett, Inside Mormonism: What Mormons Really Believe, FARMS Review 13.2 (2001): 245.
31. Bickmore, review of Bennett, 45.
32. Harold Bloom, The American Religion (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), 101.
33. Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith; American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2002), 365.
34. Smith, Teachings, 367.
35. Doctrine and Covenants 93:33–34.
36. Smith, Teachings, 364.
37. Smith, Teachings, 311.
38. Conference Report, Apr. 1995, 112–14.
39. Alma 42:5–16.
40. Job 38:7.
41. Clement of Rome, Clementine Recognitions 1.52 (PG 1:1236).
42. Doctrine and Covenants 91.

[_harmony]

This is a preliminary copy of a paper I recently wrote that is being reviewed right now for presentation at the BYU Student Symposium. It's an early version, so the published one (if it gets published) will be quite different. I don't know if it will all fit on one post, but I welcome any ideas, concerns and criticisms.

Uh huh. We'll see.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seem to have a propensity for digging through the history of the early Christian church.

Really? Since when do members of the church have a propensity (or time!) for anything except raising their families, paying their bills, and taking care of their callings? You might qualify your statement with "some" or "a few". Because by and large, I'm pretty sure very very few members of the church are at all concerned with the early Christian church.

Among the motivations that might explain this habit, 1 a common one seems to be the desire to discover hidden pockets of the “plain and precious truths” otherwise garnished from the scriptures by the corrupting doctors of theology.

"Corrupting"? Gee, Mak... tell us how you really feel! It would do your paper more good if you just said "doctors of theology" and left out your own personal feelings.

We will examine this motivation. Is it really such a good idea to scour the early Church for signs of truth? Frank F. Judd and Stephen E. Robinson share the important warning that such a journey will never bear fruit. According to Dr. Robinson, “it just isn’t there!”2

Well, that's good to know. I'm sure all those millions of members who've been scouring libraries for early church history will be glad to know all those efforts were in vain. Thank you, Drs Judd and Robinson.

This paper will show that caution needs to be taken when attempting to identify lost Gospel truths in the fringes of early Christianity.

You're repeating yourself. I believe you said something remarkably similiar in your previous paragraph, with your "it just isn't there" remark.

In investigating the impetuses for the doctrines of early Christianity it will be of special interest to juxtapose our own contemporary and unique doctrines, and explain how they do or do not fit into our investigation.

I have bated breath, I assure you.

Many outside the church take issue with the LDS stance concerning the influence of the philosophies of men on the doctrines of the church; and some of them, astonished at our presumptuous, see that same influence in our own teachings.

Pot, meet Kettle. But then we really don't like meeting the Pot, when we don't even acknowledge we're the Kettle.

Oh, and I think you mean "presumptuousness" or "presumption". You really don't mean "presumptuous".

One such scholar discusses the hypocrisy of criticizing Hellenized Christianity while at the same time searching for parallels in the teachings of those same Hellenized Christians.3 It will be beneficial, therefore, to include within this context an analysis of Joseph Smith’s teachings.

Ah. A scholar! A rarity indeed in the Mormon Studies field.

Pre-mortal existence
[snip]

So from this section, I get the idea that you think Joseph restored what is essentially a Greek-based teaching of a pre-mortal existence? A teaching decried by and deleted from Christianity because it was considered heretical, a teaching derived from Plato and the Alexandrians... and you say Joseph restored it? Why? It wasn't part of the ancient church. So essentially you're saying Joseph either restored a non-scriptorial and non-doctrinal heresy... or he restored a teaching neither the early Christians or the Jews taught?

(by the way, I love the Gospel of Judas. It puts him in a whole different light than the damning he gets in the Gospels. I always thought the way he was treated was highly unfair. )

Eternal Nature of Matter
[snip]

I think this one is best left to the physicists and the chemists. Joseph didn't have a clue what he was talking about (and it shows) and neither did the early church fathers (and that shows too).

Deification
[snip]

For this you're using a lot of non-doctrinal, non-canonized sources. Stick with the canon. At least that has weight. In case you didn't know, although I'm sure you did, Pres Hinckley relegated the KFD to "a couplet", and "we don't teach that".

Conclusion

While on the surface some may see specific early Christian doctrines as supportive of the ancient origins of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, others see it as a testimony of the human origin of the church. An objective look at the causative factors of these doctrines clears up the errors in both conclusions.

As has been shown, the doctrines of the Patristics share only nominal similarities with the doctrines of the Prophet Joseph Smith. While we should not hold up the Gnostic idea of the pre-mortal existence as an example of a proto-Mormon doctrine, we should recognize that some of these ideas did come from somewhere; early Christianity initially believed in creatio ex materia because the scriptures taught it. We cannot say for sure whether or not other ideas, like baptism for the dead, were the empty husks of pure teachings or not. It has been proposed that the Apostles kept hidden several principles from the body of the flock, but these ideas also come from apocryphal literature.41 The Lord has cautioned us to be wary in studying these scriptures.42 Most of our scholars have done the same. Salvation, in the end, is not about discovering the hidden mysteries of God in the obscure texts of the ancient world. We are not Gnostics.

Actually, the presence of such non-doctrinal essentially pagan beliefs, such as these three and others that you don't mention, in our belief systems tells me that Joseph not only didn't have a clue what he was preaching, but had lost his revelatory foundation. His one claim to revelation was the Book of Mormon. It makes me wonder if his connection with God was severed from God's end because of the whole Fanny business. Oliver may have been right.

[_maklelan]

Really? Since when do members of the church have a propensity (or time!) for anything except raising their families, paying their bills, and taking care of their callings? You might qualify your statement with "some" or "a few". Because by and large, I'm pretty sure very very few members of the church are at all concerned with the early Christian church.

Being a member of the church who actually engages in academics, and being a Gospel Doctrine teacher who is always asked for opinions about the history of Christ's church, I can say that you are wrong. Many, many church members want to know more about it.

"Corrupting"? Gee, Mak... tell us how you really feel! It would do your paper more good if you just said "doctors of theology" and left out your own personal feelings.

I was commenting on the attitude of those who act upon those motivations. I know it's subtle, but please don't put words in my mouth.

Well, that's good to know. I'm sure all those millions of members who've been scouring libraries for early church history will be glad to know all those efforts were in vain. Thank you, Drs Judd and Robinson.

If you actually read my paper you'll see I never said studying it was in vain, I said trying to dig out of it some nugget of truth that the church is yet unaware of is in vain. Again, please don't put words in my mouth.

You're repeating yourself. I believe you said something remarkably similiar in your previous paragraph, with your "it just isn't there" remark.

The remark wasn't mine, harmony, it was a quote, and the above is called a thesis statement. It's a necessary part of any paper.

In investigating the impetuses for the doctrines of early Christianity it will be of special interest to juxtapose our own contemporary and unique doctrines, and explain how they do or do not fit into our investigation.

I have bated breath, I assure you.

Pot, meet Kettle. But then we really don't like meeting the Pot, when we don't even acknowledge we're the Kettle.

I have provided twelve pages of evidence for my claim. Where's your evidence?

Oh, and I think you mean "presumptuousness" or "presumption". You really don't mean "presumptuous".

You're right. Thank you for pointing that out for me.

Ah. A scholar! A rarity indeed in the Mormon Studies field.

The scholar is a non--Mormon. If you had paid attention to the sentence surrounding that word you would see exactly what I was referring to.

So from this section, I get the idea that you think Joseph restored what is essentially a Greek-based teaching of a pre-mortal existence? A teaching decried by and deleted from Christianity because it was considered heretical, a teaching derived from Plato and the Alexandrians... and you say Joseph restored it? Why? It wasn't part of the ancient church. So essentially you're saying Joseph either restored a non-scriptorial and non-doctrinal heresy... or he restored a teaching neither the early Christians or the Jews taught?

Actually the theme of that section is exactly the opposite. Thank you for utterly ignoring the sentences to pick out one word to criticize.

I think this one is best left to the physicists and the chemists. Joseph didn't have a clue what he was talking about (and it shows) and neither did the early church fathers (and that shows too).

Again, I have twelve pages of evidence to support my statement. Where's your evidence?

For this you're using a lot of non-doctrinal, non-canonized sources. Stick with the canon. At least that has weight. In case you didn't know, although I'm sure you did, Pres Hinckley relegated the KFD to "a couplet", and "we don't teach that".

That couplet has absolutely nothing to do with this section. Are you reading it or just looking for hot button words?

Actually, the presence of such non-doctrinal essentially pagan beliefs, such as these three and others that you don't mention, in our belief systems tells me that Joseph not only didn't have a clue what he was preaching, but had lost his revelatory foundation. His one claim to revelation was the Book of Mormon. It makes me wonder if his connection with God was severed from God's end because of the whole Fanny business. Oliver may have been right.

What's funny is that I show exactly your position to be false in my paper, but it appears you have failed to make yourself aware of anything I was saying.

In that I started this thread, am I allowed to request that people not contributing anything to it not post? Harmony has been following my posts around and harrassing me at every turn. Can I at least keep her out of my own thread so others can share their thoughts?

[_harmony]

Really? Since when do members of the church have a propensity (or time!) for anything except raising their families, paying their bills, and taking care of their callings? You might qualify your statement with "some" or "a few". Because by and large, I'm pretty sure very very few members of the church are at all concerned with the early Christian church.

Being a member of the church who actually engages in academics, and being a Gospel Doctrine teacher who is always asked for opinions about the history of Christ's church, I can say that you are wrong. Many, many church members want to know more about it.

whoosh! That is the sound of my point going right over your head. There are 12 million members, Mak. How many do you suppose are GD teachers? How many more do you suppose are engaged in any way with academics? Many, many church members may indeed want to know more about it, but at least 10 times as many don't have a clue, don't want a clue, and are more worried about paying their bills and feeding their families than they are early church fathers. Don't overestimate yourself. You're in the minority, and a very small minority it is.

"Corrupting"? Gee, Mak... tell us how you really feel! It would do your paper more good if you just said "doctors of theology" and left out your own personal feelings.

I was commenting on the attitude of those who act upon those motivations. I know it's subtle, but please don't put words in my mouth.

Those who acted on what motivations? Subtle isn't the word. You've "subtled" it completely out of existence.

Well, that's good to know. I'm sure all those millions of members who've been scouring libraries for early church history will be glad to know all those efforts were in vain. Thank you, Drs Judd and Robinson.

If you actually read my paper you'll see I never said studying it was in vain, I said trying to dig out of it some nugget of truth that the church is yet unaware of is in vain. Again, please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't put words in your mouth; I put them in Dr's Judd and Robinson's mouths. And you missed the irony... again. I guess it was too subtle.

You're repeating yourself. I believe you said something remarkably similiar in your previous paragraph, with your "it just isn't there" remark.

The remark wasn't mine, harmony, it was a quote, and the above is called a thesis statement. It's a necessary part of any paper.

I'm well aware of what a thesis statement is. What I'm wondering is if you know what to do with criticism, especially unfriendly criticism. Are you going to get all defensive when your paper is shattered by your committee? Because if they don't tear it apart, it doesn't mean the paper is well-written. It means it's so bad, they realize it can't be fixed and they've kicked it (and you) to the curb. Oh but wait! This is BYU we're talking about. Ah well... nevermind. If it's faith-promoting enough, it will pass review.

In investigating the impetuses for the doctrines of early Christianity it will be of special interest to juxtapose our own contemporary and unique doctrines, and explain how they do or do not fit into our investigation.

I have bated breath, I assure you.

Pot, meet Kettle. But then we really don't like meeting the Pot, when we don't even acknowledge we're the Kettle.

I have provided twelve pages of evidence for my claim. Where's your evidence?

What claim did I make? I'm not writing the paper, my friend; you are. You asked for criticism. I gave it. If you can't stand the heat, get the heck out of the kitchen.

Oh, and I think you mean "presumptuousness" or "presumption". You really don't mean "presumptuous".

You're right. Thank you for pointing that out for me.

You're welcome. I bet that hurt.

Ah. A scholar! A rarity indeed in the Mormon Studies field.

The scholar is a non--Mormon. If you had paid attention to the sentence surrounding that word you would see exactly what I was referring to.

*sigh* Again, you missed the irony. When will I learn that BYU produced irony-challenged students?

So from this section, I get the idea that you think Joseph restored what is essentially a Greek-based teaching of a pre-mortal existence? A teaching decried by and deleted from Christianity because it was considered heretical, a teaching derived from Plato and the Alexandrians... and you say Joseph restored it? Why? It wasn't part of the ancient church. So essentially you're saying Joseph either restored a non-scriptorial and non-doctrinal heresy... or he restored a teaching neither the early Christians or the Jews taught?

Actually the theme of that section is exactly the opposite. Thank you for utterly ignoring the sentences to pick out one word to criticize.

Then I suggest you work on your clarity. A rewrite is in order.

I think this one is best left to the physicists and the chemists. Joseph didn't have a clue what he was talking about (and it shows) and neither did the early church fathers (and that shows too).

Again, I have twelve pages of evidence to support my statement. Where's your evidence?

How about the entire Book of Abraham? About 6000 pages (and years) of scripture, very little of which meshes with what we know is true, thanks to modern science? Good grief, Mak. Try to get into the 21st century with the rest of us.

For this you're using a lot of non-doctrinal, non-canonized sources. Stick with the canon. At least that has weight. In case you didn't know, although I'm sure you did, Pres Hinckley relegated the KFD to "a couplet", and "we don't teach that".

That couplet has absolutely nothing to do with this section. Are you reading it or just looking for hot button words?

Again, you missed the point. Nothing about the King Follett Discourse is doctrinal, none of it is canonzied, all of it is just speculation. Stick with the canon.

Actually, the presence of such non-doctrinal essentially pagan beliefs, such as these three and others that you don't mention, in our belief systems tells me that Joseph not only didn't have a clue what he was preaching, but had lost his revelatory foundation. His one claim to revelation was the Book of Mormon. It makes me wonder if his connection with God was severed from God's end because of the whole Fanny business. Oliver may have been right.

What's funny is that I show exactly your position to be false in my paper, but it appears you have failed to make yourself aware of anything I was saying.

That you don't want to read another view is not my problem. If you cannot make your position clear, that's not my problem either. It appears you need to work on your clarity.

In that I started this thread, am I allowed to request that people not contributing anything to it not post? Harmony has been following my posts around and harrassing me at every turn. Can I at least keep her out of my own thread so others can share their thoughts?

[/quote]

This isn't BYU, it isn't MAD and it sure as heck isn't Pundits. Anyone is allowed to post on any thread. You put this up on a public thread. You asked for comments. No one else even took the time to post anything, and why should they, if you're only going to complain when you don't like what they post? If you wanted only certain comments from certain posters, you should have pm'd it to the people you wanted comments from. Try to remember where you are, Mak. We don't automatically assume anyone (even apologists) know what they're talking about here.

[_maklelan]

Harmony, I'm going to speak honestly. I don't think anyone else will respond if you're taking up all the room. I started this thread to get ideas from people who are versed in this subject, and I honestly don't think you have anything you can add to my paper. Your criticisms have completely ignored my points and your responses to mine have ignored them again. Please refrain from commenting on this thread anymore. I'm asking you to not ridicule me and just let others share their critiques. Can you please do that for me?

[_Bond...James Bond]

I have a question.

At the beginning of the post you said:

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seem to have a propensity for digging through the history of the early Christian church.

How many LDS do you think really dig into history beyond doing their genealogies? I doubt most LDS (or any religious person for that matter) digs too deeply into early religious history. In my opinion it's too obscure an area for too many people to be interested in or to be able to comprehend. Online posters (a group of people who may pick up alot more through message boards) may have a decent knowledge of Christian history, but how much do you think the run-of-the-mill Average Joe knows about history?

I was just wondering if you should change the beginning to "A certain segment of the LDS have a propensity..." or "A certain segment of LDS academics have a propensity..." to show that a segment of the community is interested, but to distinguish that segment from the rest who may have little knowledge on the issue.

Bond

[_maklelan]

I have a question.

At the beginning of the post you said:

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seem to have a propensity for digging through the history of the early Christian church.

How many LDS do you think really dig into history beyond doing their genealogies? I doubt most LDS (or any religious person for that matter) digs too deeply into early religious history. In my opinion it's too obscure an area for too many people to be interested in or to be able to comprehend. Online posters (a group of people who may pick up alot more through message boards) may have a decent knowledge of Christian history, but how much do you think the run-of-the-mill Average Joe knows about history?

I was just wondering if you should change the beginning to "A certain segment of the LDS have a propensity..." or "A certain segment of LDS academics have a propensity..." to show that a segment of the community is interested, but to distinguish that segment from the rest who may have little knowledge on the issue.

Bond

Thanks Jimmy.

From my six years experience in the church I've seen most of the member I have come into contact with have either knowledge of the early church, or a desire to have knowledge of the early church. I feel my statement is accurate, but I will ask around and look into your suggestion.

[QuestionEverything]

Thanks Jimmy.

From my six years experience in the church I've seen most of the member I have come into contact with have either knowledge of the early church, or a desire to have knowledge of the early church. I feel my statement is accurate, but I will ask around and look into your suggestion.

I think everyone wishes they had knowledge of every issue. I wish I had more knowledge about a ton of things (most of which I won't ever have time to devote too). But a desire to have knowledge isn't the same as digging into a subject and actually becoming somewhat grounded in the sources to provide a more rounded view of an issue.

And is the knowledge based on what the Bible says or from other sources in the era? I've talked to alot of Christians (the "mainstream" kind) who say they have a knowledge of church history, but mention the Bible as there source.

Bond

[_Yoda]

I have a question.

At the beginning of the post you said:

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seem to have a propensity for digging through the history of the early Christian church.

How many LDS do you think really dig into history beyond doing their genealogies? I doubt most LDS (or any religious person for that matter) digs too deeply into early religious history. In my opinion it's too obscure an area for too many people to be interested in or to be able to comprehend. Online posters (a group of people who may pick up alot more through message boards) may have a decent knowledge of Christian history, but how much do you think the run-of-the-mill Average Joe knows about history?

I was just wondering if you should change the beginning to "A certain segment of the LDS have a propensity..." or "A certain segment of LDS academics have a propensity..." to show that a segment of the community is interested, but to distinguish that segment from the rest who may have little knowledge on the issue.

Bond

I agree with James on this. One other way you may want to word it is simply changing it to "Some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints seem to have a propensity for digging through the history of the early Christian church."

That way, you're still keeping your basic premise, but clarifying it slightly.

Mak, I think that overall, the paper is very well-written and researched. One thing that did come glaring out at me, in addition to Harmony's grammatical correction of "presumption" instead of "presumptious" was the following:

The New Testament offers few clues in either direction concerning the nature of creation outside of some squirrelly exegesis, but the Patristics offer some interesting ideas.

Perhaps I'm just "old school", but I wouldn't use the adjective "squirrelly" in a scholarly paper. If I were grading one of my students, I would suggest they change it.

Thanks for sharing it with us.

:)

[_maklelan]

I agree with James on this. One other way you may want to word it is simply changing it to "Some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints seem to have a propensity for digging through the history of the early Christian church."

That way, you're still keeping your basic premise, but clarifying it slightly.

Mak, I think that overall, the paper is very well-written and researched.

I see y'alls point.

One thing that did come glaring out at me, in addition to Harmony's grammatical correction of "presumption" instead of "presumptious"

I think as I typed it I must have spelled it wrong and the word processor automatically changed it to "presumptuous."

was the following:

The New Testament offers few clues in either direction concerning the nature of creation outside of some squirrelly exegesis, but the Patristics offer some interesting ideas.

Perhaps I'm just "old school", but I wouldn't use the adjective "squirrelly" in a scholarly paper. If I were grading one of my students, I would suggest they change it.

Thanks for sharing it with us.

:)

Yeah I was planning on changing that.